Trump Kicks COVID Bill Back To Congress; Demands $2,000 Stimulus, Shreds Lawmakers Over Mountain Of Pork

President Trump appeared to threaten to veto the COVID-19 stimulus package that Congress passed almost 24 hours earlier, telling lawmakers to boost checks for Americans to $2,000 as well as “get rid of wasteful and unnecessary items” in the spending bill

Trump said “throughout the summer, Democrats cruelly blocked COVID relief legislation in an effort to advance their extreme left wing agenda and influence the election…”

“it’s taken forever” to get a package and the bill passed “is much different than anticipated.”

“It really is a disgrace,” he added.

Then reeled off a list of disgusting ‘pork’ (read the details here) that has been piled into this record-breaking 5,593 page bill.

As Axios notes, many of the items Trump listed, such as foreign aid, which were not related to COVID-19 are not part of the coronavirus relief package. These form part of the government funding bill, which was passed alongside the coronavirus relief package….

Election Integrity Hearing, Gettysburg, Nov 25 2020

Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, a retired Colonel in the U.S. Army, took to Twitter to shred the mainstream media narrative that there is no evidence of voter fraud in the election.

In a video that includes witness testimony, testimony from data scientists, and retired Col. Phil Waldron testimony, he shows what the media won’t show you.

Mastriano calls the media a bunch of partisan hacks and calls on them to do the job they’re supposed to be doing.

Trump Calls For Americans To March On DC January 6 To Stop Bankster Takeover

President Trump has called on Americans to resist the Deep State election coup by marching on Washington when Congress moves to recognize Biden as president.

In an early Saturday morning tweet, Trump called on Americans to gather for a “big protest” in Washington D.C. on January 6th, the day Congress will meet to accept the presidential election results.

“Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud ‘more than sufficient’ to swing victory to Trump. A great report by Peter. Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Trump wrote.

The latest moves by the Pentagon and intelligence community suggest the Trump administration is treating the election fraud as a dire national security issue.

For example, over the past week the Pentagon has staffed more Trump loyalists into positions of influence, including the appointment of a China expert to head the Defense Policy Board.

But there’s more:

  • Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller reportedly ordered a halt on cooperation with Joe Biden’s transition team on Friday.
  • The FBI, US Marshals and Texas Rangers raided the SolarWinds headquarters in Austin, Texas earlier this week following the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) emergency directive revealing the IT firm’s software (used by Dominion Voting Systems) was hacked by a foreign power.
  • Trump pardoned Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn last month, who is now free to advise the president on national security matters.
  • Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe cautioned earlier this month that a Biden administration may not come to pass.

“Well, these election issues – we’ll see who is in what seats and whether there is a Biden administration,” Ratcliffe said.

Taken together, these moves indicate Trump and the patriot elements of the national security apparatus are preparing to take on the Deep State coup before Inauguration Day on January 20th, 2021.

Will you answer President Trump’s call to defend the Republic?

Trump Calls Out Massive Ballot Dumps In Swing States

President Trump knows he won the election.

The fraud was massive.

Thousands of votes were dumped in swing states overnight.

Democrats used “Drop and Roll” to steal the election:

In Pennsylvania, President Trump led by nearly 700,000 votes on election night.

Democrats dumped hundreds of thousands of votes to steal the state from the Trump Campaign.

In testimony before the Pennsylvania State Legislature, there was this exchange: 

Rudy Giuliani: “Of the 600K votes added during curious ‘spikes’ in PA, how many went to Biden?”

Witness: “I think our figures were about 570-some-odd-thousand.”

Rudy Giuliani: “And how much for Trump?”

Witness: “I think it was a little over 3,200.”

The crowd erupted in gasps and laughter.

Watch the video:

Rigged election!

CHD: ‘Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights’

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has published a new e-book to help those concerned about vaccine safety and mandates understand and explain the health risks associated with vaccines, the need to respect individual autonomy and the responsibility of those who administer vaccines to provide consumers with complete information.

The e-book, “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” is designed to be used with other CHD resources, including the Mandates Toolbox. The e-book can be downloaded here.

Compulsory childhood vaccination has long been a cornerstone of U.S. public health policy. But until recently, nearly all states allowed for vaccine exemptions. Most states still recognize the con­stitutional dimensions of the right to refuse medical care —  and they at least pay lip service to the ethical principle of informed consent, legally codified in the post-World War II Nuremberg Code.

But that could soon change. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries and international organizations have been actively preparing for COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and mandates.

“They know they cannot get people to take this vaccine willingly,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel. “They know they cannot win this debate in the public square. The only way is through censorship and coercion. And those are bowling balls that are meant to destroy all of the tenets of our democracy,” Kennedy said. “What we’re standing up for is our children.”

Government officials appear willing to ignore the fundamental premises of clinical informed consent— that “the patient must be competent, adequately informed and not coerced” — to the point where censorship of vaccine risk information is earning plaudits and policymakers are openly entertaining the prospect of state-sanctioned forced vaccination.

Some vaccine proponents unashamedly have begun to argue that informed consent is a “legal fiction,” claiming that in the context of compulsory vaccination, “the mode of informed consent is confusing, inappropriate, and out of place.”

Meanwhile, as public health officials continue to add more inadequately tested vaccines to the childhood schedule, scholars at prestigious academic institutions are helping to lay a legal foundation for coercive legislation that stops just short of forcible vaccination.

In fact, each of the reportedly “incremental” measures being floated as viable proposals — eliminating nonmedical exemptions, developing “oversight mechanisms for medical exemptions,” lowering the age of vaccine consent and going after vaccine “disinformation” — are already well underway.

“As governments push for more vaccine mandates, especially flu and COVID vaccines, even as they fail to subject vaccines and vaccine mandates to appropriate scrutiny and skepticism, the public and ethical professionals must step into the breach,” Kennedy said. “‘Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?’ is designed to help them do just that.”

In “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” CHD lawyers and other experts:

  • Review the tenuous legal underpinnings of vaccine mandates in the United States. (Section II)
  • Discuss how officials have used the false rationale of “herd immunity” to make unjustifiable claims about the need for mandates. (Section III)
  • Present the flawed logic of hepatitis B vaccine mandates as a case study. (Section IV)
  • Explore the campaign to smooth the path to further mandates by undermining parents’ role in vaccine decision-making. (Section V)
  • Examine the highly coordinated agenda to push compulsory vaccination across the globe. (Section VI)
  • Discuss steps being taken to halt the erosion of informed consent and vaccine choice. (Section VII)

Learn more and sign up to get the e-book here.

NYT normalizes racist eugenics supported by woke doctors

When it comes to deciding who will receive the coronavirus vaccine, the far-left New York Times is normalizing the idea that skin color is more important than need, risk, and vulnerability.

Yep, the Times is perfectly comfortable arguing that it is okay to sacrifice your grandparents on the altar of social justice.

Feel free to accuse me of hyperbole, but the truth is the truth, and the truth is that not since Nazi Germany have we seen something like what the New York Times is guilty of, which is an establishment news organization openly normalizing the idea of choosing who lives and who dies, not on need, but on race and skin color.

Wither the Hippocratic Oath.

An article published by the Times this month examined the dilemma of the Trump vaccine. “The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?” the headline read, which is a perfectly legitimate moral dilemma for a newspaper to look into. We can’t vaccinate everyone at once, so who goes first and why?

So dummy me, because I sometimes forget how far gone the media are, how morally illiterate the children who run organizations such as the Times are, I’m expecting a thoughtful debate over who is more at risk and how tough decisions sometimes have to be made. I’m even willing to accept a look at something like, “Well, if we vaccinate grandma and not Dr. Happy and Dr. Happy dies or gets sick, more people might die with Dr. Happy out of action.”

Hey, I’m an adult. I get nuance and thinking out loud. I can handle that.

I’ll tell you what I didn’t expect…

I did not expect the New York Times to normalize the openly racist practice of eugenics. I’m going to quote fully below what the New York Times published as an acceptable line of thought, and since you may not believe me, you can look for yourself right here.

I’m not making any of this up, nor am I taking anyone out of context. The only thing I am adding is the bold emphasis:

Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

I think that what he meant to say was, Ve can ztart to level out ze playing field a bit!

Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities.

“Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers.”

I think what he meant to say was, Vy would we vazzinate ze very white teachers!

Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, disagreed. Teachers not only ensure that children don’t fall further behind in their education, she said, but are also critical to the work force at large.

When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue.”

I think what she meant to say was, Ve must unfortunately vazzinate ze white people to save ze preferred races!

This is horrifying.

And it is not as if the New York Times was blindsided by this. The piece is actually premised — not on answering the question of who goes next based on saving lives, but social “inequities.” It’s right there in the third reich — I mean third paragraph:

[The question of “who goes next” is] a question increasingly guided by concerns over the inequities laid bare by the pandemic, from disproportionately high rates of infection and death among poor people and people of color to disparate access to testing, child care and technology for online schooling….

  1. The first targeted groups will simply be the first guinea pigs who bear the full brunt of the vaccines’ immediate toxic effects.   Later groups might be spared the worst of this as the establishment reacts to public outcry and the threat of increasing popular resistance.   So under the mask of social justice, the disadvantaged people traditionally targeted by eugenics will fare worse.   Of course the long-term effects will be more or less equally distributed.
  2. The fascist eugenics establishment’s silence about the importance of vitamin D in dealing with covid shows once again that they have a problem with the existence of dark skinned people.
  3. Ergo their pathologization of “whiteness” is simply a divide and conquer strategy for the purpose of social control and sowing harvestable social disasters.
  4. Again, no matter how cynical you are, it’s not enough.

Medicalized Eugenics in Evidence as COVID-19 Disproportionately Kills African Americans

Vitamin D Deficiency May Account for Almost Nine of Ten COVID-19 Deaths

Mind Control on the Left

Transparency in all things